5 Ft. Bill. Beware of What You Wish For. You Might Just Get It--With A Nasty Spin

Bicyclists have rarely benefited from, and have often been harassed using so called "As Far Right As Is Practicable" laws, and House Bill 192, should it be signed by the Governor, will most likely be no exception.

The League of American Bicyclists believes that cyclists have a fundamental right to the road. --Bike Law University of the LAB

"In legislative debate, a wrecking amendment (also called a poison pill amendment or killer amendment) is an amendment made by a legislator who disagrees with the principles of a bill and who seeks to make it useless (by moving amendments to either make the bill malformed and nonsensical, or to severely change its intent) rather than directly opposing the bill by simply voting against it." -Wikipedia

What was a damn good five foot passing bill (HB 192) that required a five feet clearance to pass a bicyclist in New Mexico, and which also explicitly authorized motorists to cross the double line when it is safe to do so in order to facilitate safe passing, has been seriously modified by additional language stipulating bicyclists must use a sidepath "when practicable". Violation would be a penalty assessment misdemeanor.

Such "practicable" language in the past has been used to get us pesky bicyclists as far off the road as someone else deems "practicable since "practicable" is often left to the judgement not of the rider, but of the police or impatient motorists. Just ask John Vance, who was convicted and fined under a mandatory sidepath law (since repealed) in Rio Rancho. (Note added later: this bill would not create a "mandatory sidepath law" but the onus would be on the cyclist to explain why it is not "practicable" to use a path instead of the road).

State Sen. James White inserted the sidepath language late in the session and both legislative chambers approved it. See the jpeg below. Several of us are therefore calling for Gov. Lujan-Grisham to veto the bill. In its present form, this bill is likely to do more harm than good.

Sidepath laws tend to discriminate against cyclists, who are often better served by the roads and seriously slowed or inconvenienced by heavy multiuse traffic on paths. If you are a fast cyclist commuting to work or just out for an aerobic ride, its simply not safe to ride fast on a busy path used by walkers, joggers, dog walkers, and others. Its often fruitless to argue these fine points in a non cycling culture so "practicable" becomes a blunt instrument. A second issue is whether paths are built properly. Some are unsafe, and can, aside from user conflicts, create potentially hazardous intersections with streets and roads. See John Allen's analysis.

So while the bill would not require cyclists to always use a sidepath if available, the onus would always be on the cyclist to justify using the road, and that is a loss of rights and legitimacy.

Finally, do we really know how cyclists are killed and if this law would make a difference? I've yet to hear from cyclists in Albuquerque, Santa Fe, or Los Alamos, where laws are already in place, that drivers pay attention. The Legislative Fiscal Impact Report says in part:

The Department of Transportation reports that preliminary data show that from 2015 to 2018, there have been 26 bicyclists on non-motorized bicycles killed on New Mexico roads. The most current data available shows that from 2012 to 2016, over 1,300 bicyclists were injured in a crash. The most current data shows that in 2016, 38 percent of all bicyclists in crashes were between 15 and 34 years old. Driver inattention and failure to yield, together, account for over 40 percent of the top contributing factors in bicycle-involved crashes.

Granted, being hit from behind at speed is likely to get you killed but while passing a feel-good bill saying to provide five feet, the partial shoulder paving continues to be practiced at the state and local level (including East Jemez Road), which means cyclists often cannot use a paved shoulder and are therefore put at risk by design. And an inattentive driver might not notice you. And a cop may not even ticket the motorist after he or she hits or sideswipes you.  So will a law do some good? Only if vigorous enforcement, engineering, and education go with it.

If you want to send a message to the Governor on this, here is the link to do so.

https://www.governor.state.nm.us/contact-the-governor/

I'm appending Jennifer Buntz' letter to the governor too, since she posted it to the BikeABQ listserve.

Governor Lujan Grisham, 

Please consider vetoing HB192, the 5 fee to pass bicycles bill. The bill was given a last minute amendment before it went to the Senate Floor, which I believe transformed the bill from one that was positive for bicyclists into one that could have very negative, if unintended, consequences for cyclists.

The amendment puts cyclists right to use roadways into an ill defined space that is not where the State should go with regard to supporting alternative forms of transportation.  The amendment states that "To the extent practicable, a person shall not operate a bicycle within a vehicle lane if a separate posted or painted bicycle lane or pathway is provided within or adjacent to the roadway."  It is the use of the word "practicable" and its ambiguity that is objectionable to cyclists who routinely use roadways.

Take the example of Tramway Boulevard in Albuquerque.  The north-south portion of Tramway Boulevard has a path adjacent to the roadway, the Tramway Recreation Trail.   While this is a fine path, it is not a path dedicated to the use of bicycles.  Many different users can be found enjoying the Tramway Recreation Trail..  Due to the variety of users, many cyclists, myself included, prefer to ride on the shoulder of Tramway Boulevard.  This choice allows groups of cyclists to ride together, and more importantly, avoids conflict with the walkers, runners, children, dogs, rollerbladers, and slower cyclists who choose the Tramway Recreation Trail.  Riding the shoulder makes this route much more expedient if you are a bicycle commuter too.  The amendment to HB192 puts this choice in jeopardy, taking it out of the hands of cyclists and leaving it up to the discretion of law enforcement and judges.  It is also likely to add to motorist/cyclist conflict.  

I was very disappointed that Senator Wirth and Representative Rubio allowed the bill to advance to the Senate Floor with this amendment.  Please do not let this bill become law.  The benefit of the 5 feet to pass component is not worth the difficulties that the amendment creates.  Cyclists already face many barriers.  I urge you to veto this bill so that another barrier is not added.

I had the pleasure of meeting you twice when you were our US Representative.  I traveled to Washington D. C. during the League of American Bicyclists annual Washington lobbying week.  It was great to meet you and I appreciated your support for transportation bills that supported cycling.  I am also one of the people from Duke City Wheelmen who places ghost bikes for cyclists who die while cycling.  

My objection to this amendment comes from years of advocacy work for safer cycling.  I would welcome the opportunity to speak with someone in your office about this matter, and to delve deeper into how New Mexico can be made a better place for cyclists as well as other forms of alternative transportation.  Cycling in New Mexico really should be supported as a form of recreation and as a health promoting activity too.  

Although this HB192 might look good at first glance, I do not believe it supports or promotes safer conditions for bicyclists in New Mexico.  Thank you for considering this opinion.  Please contact me if you have any questions.

With highest regards,

Jennifer Buntz

 

Here is the League of American Bicyclists position on sidepath laws.